Re: git-migration: Changes to 'master'
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 05:53:29PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> clone | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> New commits:
> commit 0726222645eb8e6e4f25056e8f7244b4566825e3
> Author: Thierry Reding <email@example.com>
> Date: Wed Jan 3 17:50:06 2007 +0100
> Implement the proposed XSF git archive policy.
> diff --git a/clone b/clone
> index 5df6b30..da15d46 100755
> --- a/clone
> +++ b/clone
> @@ -13,17 +13,35 @@ (
> debian=$(echo $line | cut -d' ' -f1)
> upstream=$(echo $line | cut -d' ' -f2)
> + echo "Setting up $debian for cloning..."
> if [ -d "$debian.git/.git/remotes" ]; then
> # create remote `origin' branch for the alioth repositories
> cat > "$debian.git/.git/remotes/origin" << EOF
> URL: ssh://git.debian.org/git/pkg-xorg/$debian.git
> -Pull: refs/heads/master:refs/heads/master-origin
> +Push: refs/heads/master:refs/heads/debian-unstable
> +Push: refs/heads/upstream-master:refs/heads/upstream-master
Why did you use 'upstream-master'? I probably was unclear in what I wrote
down, looking back on the draft. What I had in mind was
'upstream-unstable', 'upstream-experimental', etc. I'm not certain that
this is the best way to divide up the branches though. Do you think having
'upstream-master' is a better way of handling things?
- David Nusinow